I could talk about KARML/Argon if you want; we could also combine it around the same time as ARML. I would love to see some solid details on ARML 2.0 before then, regardless, so I can have something intelligent to say about it (esp regarding our own thinking about AR extensions to KML, and the things we might not have done or might be planning).
Whatever the group thinks is useful.
On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Christine Perey wrote:
> Hi Blair,
>
> The AR Standards Community meeting on Oct 24-25 would provide an appropriate venue for community discussion of KARML/Argon. It is entirely up to you. You (and the topic) are not currently on our agenda. See the draft agenda here: http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/fourth-meeting-agenda/
>
> However, having said that, during the programme committee meeting (yesterday) there was a proposal to provide at least 30 minutes as part of Session 8 (see http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/fourth-meeting-agenda/#Session8) for discussion on the subject of ARML 2.0. Your name does not appear on the page but this was specifically put on the second day to ensure that the discussion includes appropriate participants.
>
> Regards,
> Christine
>
> Spime Wrangler
>
> cperey@perey.com
> mobile +41 79 436 6869
> VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
> Skype Christine_Perey
>
> On 9/16/11 12:47 AM, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>>
>> I will be there the second day, but I wasn't aware I was presenting anything â€¦ we have a paper on Argon and KARML in the main conference, but that's only "useful" to those attending (and there, we'll focus on the research side, not the standards side).
>>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, ya knygar wrote:
>>
>>> @Rob
>>>> and I'm hoping Lars will do too.
>>> excuse me, who is Lars?
>>>
>>> anyway - great,
>>> i think - Blair MacIntyre would also represent the Web standards view on AR,
>>> could you name the subject of your presentation?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>>>> Well I'll be covering the work of those other groups in my presentation
>>>> and I'm hoping Lars will do too.
>>>>
>>>> roBman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 16:45 +0200, Christine Perey wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> This integrative work is precisely one of the purposes of the AR
>>>>> standards community.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, it only works when/to the extent that people want it to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gentle reminder that the next meeting is Oct 24-25 in Basel.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OGC ARML activity will be topic of a presentation and discussion,
>>>>> but the other groups which Rob mentions (W3C DAP, W3C Web RTC, W3C
>>>>> Audio WG) are not on the agenda...
>>>>> Christine
>>>>>
>>>>> Spime Wrangler
>>>>>
>>>>> cperey@perey.com
>>>>> mobile +41 79 436 6869
>>>>> VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
>>>>> Skype Christine_Perey
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/11 2:58 PM, Rob Manson wrote:
>>>>>> I think ya knygar raises a very interesting point for you Martin and the
>>>>>> OGC too. How do you see this relating to all the work already under way
>>>>>> for web based AR standards development.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean how would this integrate with the Declarative 3D work?
>>>>>> Or the POI WG work?
>>>>>> Or the DAP and Web RTC work?
>>>>>> Or the Audio WG work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how would this integrate or leverage the StreamInput work that
>>>>>> Khronos are starting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm all for standards...but I think before we head into another set of
>>>>>> weeds I'd really like to see our overall community doing more
>>>>>> integrative work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> roBman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 12:29 +0000, ya knygar wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Martin Lechner!
>>>>>>>> I strongly disagree that AR standards are still not required.
>>>>>>> i don't see any soul here - with ignorance for IT standards,
>>>>>>> i think what Blair MacIntyre - the developer of another useful AR
>>>>>>> standard - exactly mean:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given that a vast amount of what would be "in" an ARML or KARML data stream, there is absolutely no chance any of them will be compatible with each other any time soon, so why not work on the big issues before going down into the weeds?...
>>>>>>>> to work together to be compatible where we agree, and go our own way when we don't, and then see things evolve basic on real people actually
>>>>>>> doing things with the various browser and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> I think that - while the "Web Story" is a little bit different from the "AR Story" - it still makes a good "reference story".
>>>>>>> 1. Following your context -- do you envision some AR Net rather than
>>>>>>> functioning only in the standards defined - Web?
>>>>>>> (given the currently strong approach on standardization of "Device
>>>>>>> API's", i mean - at least 3 serious groups - working for the 'next'
>>>>>>> Web)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Do you think it is 'Ok' to make some other consortium and move
>>>>>>> separately from the current W3C governance?
>>>>>>> (like WHATWG did, for example)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Could you, please, elaborate on the differences where are the good
>>>>>>> old, decentralized
>>>>>>> "World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web)" as "an information space in
>>>>>>> which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified
>>>>>>> by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)."
>>>>>>> model does not fit / where it fits in your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, I'd like to invite everyone (as in *EVERYONE*) to work within the ARML 2.0 SWG
>>>>>>> do you plan an open mailing list or forum during the development of proposition,
>>>>>>> so people - who aren't the members of OGC for one or another reason
>>>>>>> - would be able to contribute/etc. into the standard formation - in other way?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sincerely,
>>>>>>> knygar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/9/15 Martin Lechner <martin.lechner@wikitude.com>:
>>>>>>>> Hi Blair, Carl, Rob et al.!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I do agree that AR is not used by masses of people yet, I strongly
>>>>>>>> disagree that AR standards are still not required. In my opinion, a standard
>>>>>>>> the AR community agrees on will help the industry grow significantly, if (as
>>>>>>>> in *IF*) the standard takes into account that it will require extension in
>>>>>>>> the future. Still, we all know that AR applications are out for quite some
>>>>>>>> time now (with a lot more to come every week), and I guess all of us will
>>>>>>>> agree that they all have significant overlaps in their functionalities. As
>>>>>>>> far as I'm concerned, this already justifies working on a standard for AR.
>>>>>>>> Figure how HTML was created - it started out with a couple of tags, and I'm
>>>>>>>> pretty sure Tim did not know precisely how the Web will be shaped in the
>>>>>>>> future. Yet, it was extensible, and turned out to be successful. I think
>>>>>>>> that - while the "Web Story" is a little bit different from the "AR Story" -
>>>>>>>> it still makes a good "reference story".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, it's about getting things started, allowing the AR industry
>>>>>>>> to agree on a standard, while still not closing doors for extending the
>>>>>>>> standard. It will be one of the key topics in the ARML 2.0 SWG where we need
>>>>>>>> to ensure that future AR requirements can be met (by adding new components
>>>>>>>> to the standard), I keep thinking about a component model where various
>>>>>>>> components can connect with the existing ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, I'd like to invite everyone (as in *EVERYONE*) to work within
>>>>>>>> the ARML 2.0 SWG to define an AR standard within the OGC. You guys at GA
>>>>>>>> Tech could certainly contribute a lot to the success of the SWG, so in case
>>>>>>>> you are still interested, we will kick-off the ARML 2.0 SWG in the OGC TC
>>>>>>>> meeting in Boulder on Monday, Sept. 19th. Whoever wants to join and get
>>>>>>>> involved in the SWG is invited!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.2011 15:26, schrieb Blair MacIntyre:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Rob; if you have a larger list of efforts, it would have
>>>>>>>>> been more useful to include them, rather than making it appear quite so
>>>>>>>>> "wikitude-centric". Folks will be far more interested in contributing if it
>>>>>>>>> appears to be more inclusive; as it stands, the document feels a bit to
>>>>>>>>> focused on your company, which won't serve you well. Witness my reaction.
>>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We'll be happy to discuss the directions we are going to be going this
>>>>>>>>> year with KARML; the current implemented version touches on some of what
>>>>>>>>> you are going after, and our plans for Argon for this year touch on much of
>>>>>>>>> the rest of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Georgia Tech is not a member of OGC as far as I can tell, so our
>>>>>>>>> involvement won't be "formal".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just so you know, I feel that this effort is premature; I find it ironic
>>>>>>>>> that you are taking KML (a "standard" that evolved from a widely used
>>>>>>>>> defector standard into something more formal only after it was proven to be
>>>>>>>>> useful), and using it as the basis for a "design before we really know what
>>>>>>>>> people will use" standard. I use "we" inclusively: I don't think any of
>>>>>>>>> us (including researchers like me) really _know_ what needs to be in these
>>>>>>>>> standards and tools, since AR is still not being used by very many people
>>>>>>>>> for very many things, and certainly not in the architectural scenario these
>>>>>>>>> standards will impact. There are some things that can be standardized,
>>>>>>>>> perhaps (e.g., some of the ARML 1.0 things, which we've taken further in
>>>>>>>>> KARML, like extending ideas of location reference beyond LLA). But when you
>>>>>>>>> start talking about "events" I get nervous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd much rather see an informal effort by those of us (you at wikitude, my
>>>>>>>>> team, perhaps others) who are actually building on top of KML and building
>>>>>>>>> javascript libraries for AR, to work together to be compatible where we
>>>>>>>>> agree, and go our own way when we don't, and then see things evolve basic on
>>>>>>>>> real people actually doing things with the various browser and so on. Given
>>>>>>>>> that a vast amount of what would be "in" an ARML or KARML data stream, there
>>>>>>>>> is absolutely no chance any of them will be compatible with each other any
>>>>>>>>> time soon, so why not work on the big issues before going down into the
>>>>>>>>> weeds?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Martin Lechner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob, hi Blair!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We already have a list of other standards/efforts we will include in the
>>>>>>>>>> charter prior to the startup of the SWG, and KARML is on the list already,
>>>>>>>>>> along with others. The revised list will be published in an updated charter
>>>>>>>>>> document after the public comment-period. I agree that KARML is valuable
>>>>>>>>>> contribution towards an AR standard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As a general "Call for Participation", I would love to have
>>>>>>>>>> representatives from other institutions which proposed AR standards in the
>>>>>>>>>> SWG, it would be great to have you on board. However, as far as I
>>>>>>>>>> understood, you need to be OGC member to work within an SWG, this is a
>>>>>>>>>> formal requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In case you consider joining OGC to work within the SWG, highly
>>>>>>>>>> appreciated - I think Carl is the one to talk to about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Martin Lechner
>>>>>>>>>> CTO
>>>>>>>>>> Wikitude GmbH.
>>>>>>>>>> +43 (0)676 840 856 300
>>>>>>>>>> martin.lechner@wikitude.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are catching me underway ... On my iPhone!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04.09.2011, at 14:09, Rob Manson<roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are fair questions that hopefully Martin or even Carl,
>>>>>>>>>>> Steven or any of the OGC people on the list here could address.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> roBman
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 07:57 -0400, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting. How do we comment on it if we aren't OGC members?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, the complete lack of any mention of our work on KARML is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit surprising (if only in the "other know efforts" section), considering
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more mature than either ARML or ARchitect, is well documented on our
>>>>>>>>>>>> website, and has a fully working implementation in the iTunes app store
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Argon). And, of course, since I know they know about Argon and KARML, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly an intentional omission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While I realize their bias is toward their own commercial interests, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> would seem to undermine the position of OGC as a standards organization to
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a small group of people leverage them as a platform to promote their
>>>>>>>>>>>> commercial product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a publicly accessible link.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=45439
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Carl/Steven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roBman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 00:27 +1000, Rob Manson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross posting this from the AR-UX list as I think many will find it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting/relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Augmented Reality Markup Language (ARML) Standards Working Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being formed. Draft charter available for review/comment if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) member.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address any comments or questions to Martin Lechner -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> martin.lechner@wikitude.com This is the start of a 3 week review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> period. After this period, Carl Reed [OGC CTO] will do a formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call for participation. Also, if your organisation wishes to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represented as a Charter member of this new Standards Working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Group (SWG), please let Martin and Carl know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realise a number of you are not and may never be members of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OGC, so this is just some market information for you. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting standards from the OGC are freely available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=730135900&gid=3844396&type=member&item=67968411&articleURL=https%3A%2F%2Fportal%2Eopengeospatial%2Eorg%2Ffiles%2F%3Fartifact_id%3D45285%26version%3D1&urlhash=1ywF&goback=%2Egde_3844396_member_67968411
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /via Steven Ramage @ OGC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roBman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>>>> Martin Lechner
>>>>>>>> CTO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wikitude GmbH
>>>>>>>> Ginzkeyplatz 11
>>>>>>>> 5020 Salzburg/Austria
>>>>>>>> Phone +43 662 243310
>>>>>>>> Mobile +43 676 840 856 300
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.wikitude.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discussion mailing list
>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>